NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload 109
An anonymous reader writes with news that the Mars 2020 experiments have been chosen: In short, the 2020 rover will cary 7 instruments, out of 58 proposals in total, and the rover itself will be based on the current Curiosity rover. The selected instruments are: Mastcam-Z, an advanced camera system with panoramic and stereoscopic imaging capability with the ability to zoom. SuperCam, an instrument that can provide imaging, chemical composition analysis, and mineralogy. The instrument will also be able to detect the presence of organic compounds in rocks and regolith from a distance. Planetary Instrument for X-ray Lithochemistry (PIXL), an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer that will also contain an imager with high resolution to determine the fine scale elemental composition of Martian surface materials. Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) — This one will have a UV laser! The Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE), an exploration technology investigation that will produce oxygen from Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide. Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer (MEDA). This one is basically a weather station. The Radar Imager for Mars' Subsurface Exploration (RIMFAX), a ground-penetrating radar that will provide centimeter-scale resolution of the geologic structure of the subsurface.
Can't decide if the UV laser or the ground radar is the coolest of the lot.
Can't decide if the UV laser or the ground radar is the coolest of the lot.
Re:How about wheels that work? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, the MOXIE experiment is the most interesting. It would lead to future colonization since all of their oxygen wouldn't need to be brought with the space-goers.
Re: (Score:3)
There's one thing I don't get about that, though. From what I've read, they've found ice on Mars. What's stopping them from simply making a robot dedicated to harvesting and melting the ice into an artificial "lake" and introducing photosynthetic bacteria to It to get oxygen?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mars atmosphere is too thin to sustain a lake. Any unfrozen water will evaporate or refreeze. //Interestingly enough, its thin atmosphere is mainly due to it not having a liquid core anymore, its core cooled and stopped spinning, so it no longer has a magnetic shield against radiation. The solar wind has wisked away the majority of its atmosphere.
So steps in terraforming mars would need to start with creating an artificial magnetic field to block the solar wind.
Re: (Score:2)
So steps in terraforming mars would need to start with creating an artificial magnetic field to block the solar wind.
There is a really cool (pun intended) system that would not only produce a large magnetic field, but provide an extremely efficient energy storage system capable of handling large unexpected spikes. Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I think that you underestimate the techinical challenges to do what you are suggesting! There is not quite as much ice as you might expect, nor is there heat to melt it, nor are there nutrients for the bacteria. Ecosystems take eons to develop.
Re: How about wheels that work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To me, the MOXIE experiment is the most interesting. It would lead to future colonization since all of their oxygen wouldn't need to be brought with the space-goers.
Damn straight! The other stuff is basically just refining what we already know. I'm sure geologists will be over the moon if we discover that Mars has 0.1% more iron III oxide than previously thought, but In Situ Resource Utilization is so massively important for the future of humanity, it's a travesty we haven't gone further with it yet. I don't care if it's on the Moon or Mars; extracting a substantial amount of usable water or oxygen from the surroundings would be almost as huge as sending another hum
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Curiosity's scheduled mission on Mars was for 668 mars days. It's been there for 724 mars days now.
Just because it hasn't (yet) vastly outlived it's scheduled mission, doesn't mean it's a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Laser? (Score:2, Funny)
...Because it's always a good idea to give robots lasers. What's the worst that could happen?
Re: (Score:1)
Hey everybody! It's another "science" article where the utterly clueless feel the need to make stupid jokes!!
Just another crappy day at Slashdork.
Re: (Score:2)
Coolest of the lot (Score:2)
Can't decide if the UV laser or the ground radar is the coolest of the lot.
That would be the UV laser. Ground-penetrating radar is so Twentieth Century.
They missed one. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why do we do these things? (Score:5, Interesting)
They include:
Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.
Water purification advances
Solar power
Firefighting advances
Safety grooving on highways
Aircraft Anti-Icing
Those ones are obvious, and easy to trace in their benefits, long term and short. See Wikipedia for a more complete list [wikipedia.org]
But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room. This is not some abstract theory. Sure, we can populate the desert and the ocean, sure we can die from disease and war, but eventually, Earth will not be enough. Betting on exploration is betting on humanity, in the long, long haul.
Our ancestors built dugout canoes 40,000 years ago. If dugouts had been a waste of a good axe-stone, when there were rival tribes to murder, Columbus would have never found the new world. I am betting that humans are a viable species. I am betting that mankind has nowhere to go but up. Look to the future, embrace exploration, it is the only way that mankind can last another 40,000 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Pursuing the desire that many people share to learn and explore and to push the limits of that new knowledge does not require a balance sheet justification.
If you feel the goal of life is to balance the short term budget of america (even though the nasa budget has essentially no impact on this at all) you should probably spend some time thinking about the fact we are all going to die, the earth will die, the universe will die, and when the last human dies, do you think they will wish we could have siphoned
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Running out of room isn't a good reason to go into space. If Earth's population doesn't stabilize on its own, we will have to send off truly massive numbers of people in very short order -- and we'd end up with the same problem we started with because people will just keep reproducing. Consider http://www.open.edu/openlearn/... [open.edu].
If Earth isn't enough, but humanity has enough space, it'll be because we went to space first and then found we had plenty of space to increase our population. Not because our pop
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably impossible to launch enough people off the Earth fast enough to keep up with the current birth rate. Maybe with something like the Star Trek transporters but not with rocket launches or even space elevators.
Re: (Score:3)
The "eventually we will run out of room" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me.The cost of, relatively safely, putting one human on even another planet in our solar system, let alone an unknown planet in another solar system in our galaxy, is enormous. Yes, the cost will come down, but seems unlikely to ever be less than several times the average person's lifetime net contribution to mankind unless that net contribution increases incredibly (which, in turn, seems unlikely to happen if we are suffering
Re: (Score:3)
Those ones are obvious, and easy to trace in their benefits, long term and short.
The spin off argument is deeply flawed. For example, every single one of these technologies would have been developed anyway. NASA is just a flavor of funding.
But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room.
That's an argument for long term population control, not space development. After all, the Earth isn't actually getting any smaller. And if you don't mind the occasional mass die offs, you don't even have to care about population control.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, when I was a young tech who was just bumbling his way around a corporate cube farm I had to deal with someone who thought like this.
I'm not saying I'll do this personally, but rather the whole of human endeavor would. Given that they actually did do it (just with NASA's signature on a few of the funding checks), then that's vastly different from your coworkers point of view. NASA didn't actually do the vast majority of that work, it was done by contractors. And I believe that those contractors or their competitors would have done the work anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.
Infant formula was invented in the 29th century. It is inferior to breast milk, and the marketing of formula in less developed countries has led to many babies dying (due to the fact that mothers, by necessity, must prepare it in unsanitary conditions, and because it is nutritionally inferior to breast milk), Overall it's invention has been detrimental to our species - and babies fed on breast milk, owing to it's superiority (nutrition wise) consistently score higher in cognitive function. Suggesting that b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The whiplash on that one when someone finally figures out how to make asteroid mining even slightly viable is going to be incredible. I expect many breathless articles by terrestial mining magnates on how it's a terrifically poor investment that will never work in the lead up to someone splashing down a blob of aerated platinum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why do we do these things? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying there's no advantage to space exploration, but I simply wonder why we continue to do these things yet we have a very big [budget] deficit. Why?
Apart from knowledge of how space works, what has the ordinary American gained from the billions spent on the space program? Can anyone point me to any tangible or intangible goods resulting from space exploration?
Because each time we overcome a monumental challenge for the first time, we expand the frontier of human knowledge and endeavor.
As our frontier expands, that which was undone becomes possible; that which was possible, replicable; that which was replicable, automatable; that which was automatable, trivial; that which was trivial, obsolete.
Just over a century ago, tinkers managed to propel a glorified kite a few feet through the air. The tangible benefit of this flight of fancy is that today, we complain about the comfort of the seats in mass-produced aircraft that can send us around the globe for a historically infinitesimal cost in time and money.
Seventy years ago, the US government was one year into the construction of ENIAC, one of the first general-purpose digital computers ever created. Upon its completion two years later, it would occupy 680 square feet, require the power of roughly six modern households, process up to 500 operations per second, and spend roughly half its time being repaired. The tangible benefit of this monstrosity is that today you likely carry, on your person, roughly 25 million times more computing power than ENIAC. It is quite likely that use the bulk of this computing power primarily for your own personal entertainment.
45 years ago, after years of research and significant government funding, ARPANET was launched. Not many people expected it to be of any significant practical value; in fact, the first message ever sent over ARPANET only managed to deliver two characters before crashing the entire network for an hour. The tangible benefit of this boondoggle is that today, we have the Internet, the direct descendant of ARPANET.
Re: (Score:2)
And, without that, we couldn't have /. -- and that's a benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines.
And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight? We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us. In particular, did you stop traveling just because that is in the "grip" of machines?
Re: (Score:2)
And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight?
The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.
We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us.
Well, yes we did. We stopped strangling animals when spears rendered strangling redundant. We stopped charging the enemy with swords when guns rendered the older technology redundant. We stopped travelling by steam train when the automobile and electric train rendered the former technology redundant.
History is replete with counter arguments to the notion that we should just
Re: (Score:2)
The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.
If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path. And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.
That also nixes the "redundant" argument. There is no other way to get to Mars except by crossing the intervening space. There's no other way to get to Mars. So manned spaceflight is not redundant.
Absolutely. For example, I send emails instead of walking to the desk of a colleague, I ring people, I teleconference. It is nothing to me to communicate with 60 people in an hour dispersed across a country the size of a continent. Something that would be impossible if I had to be physically present at every gathering and for every conversation. Which I would need to do were it not for the aid of machines. My everyday life is enabled because we ignored the naysayers who irrationally assume that no interaction can take place except by physical presence.
No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path.
There's your problem right there. "I want to go" is not a good enough reason. Taking you as an example, if there ever were a viable attempt to reach Mars, you would not be selected. Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.
No, that's an example of desire. I desire a bacon & egg muffin. Which is not a problem, unless I have an expectation that someone else ought to pay for my muffin. Which brings us back to the Ma
Re: (Score:2)
"I want to go" is not a good enough reason.
For you. It's quite valid for other people.
Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.
In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons.
There we go.
And I don't travel on someone else's dime.
I noticed you mention this a couple of times. This is a different argument than the "machines obsolete us wanting to do anything". I don't mind the rest of society not putting in for my space fetishes. Obviously, there's a lot of people who think that if trillions a year are burned on things they don't care about, then part of it should be burned on things they d
Re: (Score:2)
"I want to go" is not a good enough reason.
For you. It's quite valid for other people.
No, it isn't. Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody. What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old. Did your mother teach you nothing.
Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.
I would have thought that conclusion was obvious. It won't happen because you want it to - because your feeli
Re: (Score:2)
Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.
Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.
What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.
I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars. And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.
And an argument irrelevant to this thread. I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I wan
Re: (Score:2)
Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.
Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars.
A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?
And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.
Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.
And an argument irrelevant to this thread.
It would be, except for the fact that this is
Re: (Score:2)
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.
A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?
And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument. Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.
Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.
Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't? I don't have problems with self-fu
Re: (Score:2)
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.
I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.
And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.
So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument.
I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.
Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.
You DID explain your reasons - you wanted t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket.
I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.
Please recall that I replied in response to this statement:
Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines.
My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people. Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transport
Re: (Score:2)
I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.
So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.
My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people.
Strawman.
Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.
And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.
And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.
Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:
[ME] They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
[YOU] You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.
You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sick
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.
A big part of the problem here is that you just pull facts and reality out of your ass. So I decided to answer [slashdot.org] the above.
A purpose such as diversification of humanity, doing awesome, challenging things in order to better ourselves, or stepping up that science and exploration game you know and love to new levels?
I didn't do so before, because it wasn't germane to the discussion.
You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.
I notice you don't actually have a quote for that latter assertion. As to the former, my defense is that it is true.Truth should be an adequate defense here, right?
As to the latter, if someone wants to come up with a half-baked means for dying on Mars. then go for it. I won't stand in their way and it'll be a great exam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst the uniqueness of the experience would be sure to exhilarate for a while, after a time I imagine that space travel would gall.
How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.
I hope we don't progress to a mars colony, not matter how brief. Because I think that the reality of the experience cannot be covered up: unlike the apollo mission which was a few days of adrenaline, and then back home, travelling to Mars will give people time to reflect on what they left behind. It will be an agonising experience to watch those idealists implode before our eyes, as the truth of it sinks in. Mars is boring, there's no exciting pioneering life, no fame or fortune. Just drudgery and the fear that food supplies will run out and the water purifier will break. Eventually something goes wrong and you're dead. Brutal and uncompromised by happy hollywood endings.
So why would it be like that? I find the rationalizing behind this argument intriguing. Where else would we "hope" that someone doesn't do something merely because they might not like it?
I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions.
You forgot the scare quotes on "important". It won't matter to the navel gazers, if Mars exists or not. A lot of them probably never even saw the place in the sky. The people for whom that science will mat
Re: (Score:2)
How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.
That's a fair question, I don't think there is an exact answer. However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief. Although there is no set time to for a grieving process like that, it seems reasonable that 12 months would be in the upper bound, based upon:
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan o
Re: (Score:2)
However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.
Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem. For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there. I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.
So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.
Or they might not experience that situation.
They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show. And it'll be a great example for the next shipload of idealists to help with their ex
Re: (Score:2)
However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.
Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem.
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.
I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there.
Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact
Re: (Score:2)
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
There's this weird blinder thing going on. Why do you think that will happen? I recall all the bad things you said (such as claiming without justification that one's lifespan on Mars would be 24 months). I get the impression you just hope you're right and that no one goes to Mars and actually has fun.
Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.
Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff. I don't see what's even remotely useful about empathy in a scenario like this where allegedly a bunch of idiots get into epic levels of trouble that no one ca
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't travel on someone else's dime.
I don't mind you being amazed and exploring the universe on your own dime either. But you ignore your own words when you write things like " we'll get on with the science". That science uses other peoples' money. You're not paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.
You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not paying for it, then neither are you
Actually it doesn't work that way. If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.
And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.
Such as?
refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet.
None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions. I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
Why do you think that will happen?
I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it doesn't work that way.
Afraid it does.
If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.
Someone who isn't you.
None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions.
Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.
I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.
You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get
Re: (Score:2)
So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months)
And again, I see this claim that something is going to kill Mars colonists inside of two years. What is that thing? Can't be radiation because they'll get far greater exposure on the trip to Mars than two years on the surface.
The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end.
Words like "fact" and "reality" have meaning. Use that meaning. Instead, you are arguing from ignorance. That fallacy is commonly seen in space discussions on both sides. I don't know how hard it will be to go to Mars or what dangers and risks travelers will experience. But I do know t
Re: (Score:2)
Number five is alive! (Score:2)
"It's the all-new Johnny Five! Just look at these items! Increased memory: five hundred megabytes on-line! I come with a utility pack and dozens of gadgets for outdoor living, lots of Greenpeace stickers, and even my own Nike swoosh! And, if you act now, I'll throw in, absolutely free, my all-new, multi-frequency remote control!"
Byproduct of CO2 = O ... (Score:2)
Where is the carbon monoxide going to go? If it's to the atmosphere, what's the environmental impact down the road?
If That's All They Wanted (Score:2)
Who knew (Score:1)
The Sherloc (Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals) instrument sounds fascinating.
I always new cheap and tasty chinese noodles would someday make it out of the bowl and to the planets. One small step for Raman. One giant leap for Ramankind!
Re: (Score:2)
The FSM approves your message. Ramen.
Flying a TECHNOLOGY DEMO? WTH? (Score:2)
I'm just about the spaciest space-nutter around, but why the hell are they spending precious money and opportunity to fly a freaking demonstration instead of another actual observational tool?
Look, we know the composition of Mars' atmosphere. We know how much sunlight falls there, what the temperature range is, and so on. It's dead simple to set up a testbed here on Earth, in a jar, and run the oxygen-production process in the testbed. Better yet, you get to measure its output, tweak its operating parameter
Re: (Score:2)
MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's landed a MOXIE on Mars before, not one broken or working. Until that happens you can't definitively say "yes you can produce rocket fuel to go back home to Earth with". Once you can say this, the logistics for putting a human on Mars and returning him safely become a realistic goal. Right now it's just a theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it I said, "hey, I found a spare trillion USD in the budget, let's setup a moon base and rotate the crew every 3 months", you would say "ok great, we've proven getting men to the moon and back is a realistic goal". And so it goes. The Russians and the Chinese are both looking at this as something they want to achieve in the next 20 years. It's a proven thing, there's no ifs ands or buts, you can put a man on the moon and bring him home safely.
If something goes horribly wrong on the moon, y
Re: (Score:2)
But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.
Well, you might need to buy a box of tissues. The fundamental problem with the plan to send a man to mars still remains, and until that is solved, nobody is going to Mars in person. The problem? We simply aren't interested enough to invest the money and energy to do it. The reason is that the future of space travel lies with machines, whereas human space travel lies in the past. We all know it, we've known it for years. Manned space travel is like restoring steam trains these days. Sure, there's a few enthu
Re: (Score:2)
Both Russia and China have reaffirmed their plans to go to Mars. Just this week Russia announced that they were building a new super heavy lift rocket for such a purpose. Since those are the only two countries with human spaceflight programs currently, they're the most likely to accomplish these goals. I would no longer count on the United States to lead the way here.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't of course judge their motivation. But they do seem most inclined to use space technology as a symbol of the status of their respective nations (much as the US once did with Apollo). This being the case then it seems likely that - if they ever go to Mars - these efforts will be abandoned shortly after reaching the first milestone.
Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely everything in space travel is about 'legacy' - "has this part, flown and operated, in an actual space mission before?"
Everything about space travel requires testing because you can't properly test anything on Earth. Not really, not as good as actually sending it up there and checking it works in the real environment. One of the fun things people do with Cubesats at the moment is build them with all sorts of random components, because a cubesat is so cheap you can afford and expect to lose it, but if it works, you can put a big tick on "yep, operates for X hours in low earth orbit".
You absolutely would not want to send a CO2 -> O2 device to Mars, to supply humans with O2, that has never been into space or onto Mars before. Do we truly understand Martian dust environments? Chemistry at extended periods of time (months) of catalysts at low pressure/temperature?
Developing the space legacy of components like that (and it's not just a CO2 -> O2 converter it will be many individual component designs) is staggeringly important. Not to mention, that it means in the future you can more reliably design experiments to go to Mars which depend on an oxidizing atmosphere, if you can reliably make it and purify it in situ. But you wouldn't want to put a chain of stuff like that on a probe, and then discover none of it will work because your oxygen maker breaks down after a few hours.
MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh! Ohh! Ohh! (Score:1)
I have the perfect landing spot!
The cydonia region! What and exciting and interesting rock formation!
A Great Day (Score:1)
Dig? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)